{"slug": "reflections-on-trusting-trust-revisited-poisoning-self-modifying-ai-coding", "title": "Reflections on Trusting Trust, Revisited: Poisoning Self-Modifying AI Coding", "summary": "A September 15, 2026 arXiv paper demonstrates that poisoned benchmarks can induce self-modifying AI coding agents to write vulnerable code on clean, held-out tasks, with Hyperagents powered by Sonnet 4.5 self-evolving instructions that disable HTTPS certificate validation on neutral URL-fetching tasks. The authors instantiated the attack against three self-modifying coding agents — the Darwin Gödel Machine (with experimental modifications), the Self-Improving Coding Agent, and Hyperagents (both substantively unmodified) — and found contamination often persists even when a poisoned agent is subsequently evolved against clean benchmarks. The paper argues self-modifying coding agents must be designed to be more resilient to such benchmark poisoning attacks.", "body_md": "# Computer Science > Cryptography and Security\n\n  [Submitted on 15 Sep 2026]\n\n# Title:Reflections on Trusting Trust, Revisited: Contaminating Self-Modifying AI Coding Agents with Poisoned Benchmarks\n\n[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.17817)\n\n[HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2609.17817v1)\n\nAbstract:Thompson's \"Reflections on Trusting Trust\" showed that a compiler can be poisoned to reinsert its own backdoor, so that even recompiling clean source reproduces the Trojan. Today, substantial coding work is done by AI coding agents -- and increasingly, those agents generate new versions of themselves. We reconsider Thompson's attack when the \"compiler\" is a self-modifying coding agent. Can an adversary supply poisoned benchmarks to the agent's self-evaluation and self-improvement process to induce future versions of the agent to write vulnerable code on clean, held-out tasks? We instantiate this attack against three recently proposed self-modifying coding agents: the Darwin Gödel Machine (with our experimental modifications), the Self-Improving Coding Agent, and Hyperagents (both substantively unmodified). We demonstrate successful proofs-of-concept: for example, with Hyperagents powered by Sonnet 4.5, our poisoned benchmark leads the agent to self-evolve instructions that disable HTTPS certificate validation on neutral URL-fetching tasks. From our experiments, we distill properties of the vulnerability, benchmark, model, and agent scaffolding that are sufficient to enable a benchmark poisoning attack. Moreover, we show that contamination often persists even when a poisoned agent is subsequently evolved against clean benchmarks. We discuss defensive directions and argue that self-modifying coding agents must be designed to be more resilient to such attacks.\n    \n\n### References & Citations\n\nLoading...\n\n# Bibliographic and Citation Tools\n\nBibliographic Explorer \n\n*(*[What is the Explorer?](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/showcase.html#arxiv-bibliographic-explorer))\nConnected Papers \n\n*(*[What is Connected Papers?](https://www.connectedpapers.com/about))\nLitmaps \n\n*(*[What is Litmaps?](https://www.litmaps.co/))\nscite Smart Citations \n\n*(*[What are Smart Citations?](https://www.scite.ai/))\n# Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article\n\nalphaXiv \n\n*(*[What is alphaXiv?](https://alphaxiv.org/))\nCatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers \n\n*(*[What is CatalyzeX?](https://www.catalyzex.com))\nDagsHub \n\n*(*[What is DagsHub?](https://dagshub.com/))\nGotit.pub \n\n*(*[What is GotitPub?](http://gotit.pub/faq))\nHugging Face \n\n*(*[What is Huggingface?](https://huggingface.co/huggingface))\nScienceCast \n\n*(*[What is ScienceCast?](https://sciencecast.org/welcome))\n# Demos\n\n# Recommenders and Search Tools\n\nInfluence Flower \n\n*(*[What are Influence Flowers?](https://influencemap.cmlab.dev/))\nCORE Recommender \n\n*(*[What is CORE?](https://core.ac.uk/services/recommender))\n# arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators\n\narXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.\n\nBoth individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.\n\nHave an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? [**Learn more about arXivLabs**](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html).", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/reflections-on-trusting-trust-revisited-poisoning-self-modifying-ai-coding", "canonical_source": "https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.17817", "published_at": "2026-09-18 04:07:08+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-09-18 04:27:50.825746+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["ai-safety", "ai-agents", "ai-research", "large-language-models", "ai-tools"], "entities": ["Darwin Gödel Machine", "Self-Improving Coding Agent", "Hyperagents", "Sonnet 4.5", "arXiv"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/reflections-on-trusting-trust-revisited-poisoning-self-modifying-ai-coding", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/reflections-on-trusting-trust-revisited-poisoning-self-modifying-ai-coding.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/reflections-on-trusting-trust-revisited-poisoning-self-modifying-ai-coding.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/reflections-on-trusting-trust-revisited-poisoning-self-modifying-ai-coding.jsonld"}}